Sunday, 09 July 2017

Anarchist rioters

Aren't proper anarchists, of course.

To the extent that they have articulable grievances, those seem to involve the government not doing enough of what they want. Not, you know, the government getting in the way of business, or existing at all, which would be actual minarchist or anarchist grievances respectively.

Really, it's just an excuse for dropping all inhibitions and running amok. And, of course, hanging out with the crowd and trying to pick up chicks.

To the ruling class, though, they serve a purpose, which might explain how these people with no visible means of support always seem to have travel money when there's a G20 or WTO meeting or some other excuse for a protest.

They scare the normals. So the ruling class can point to the riots, and proclaim the need for bigger, stronger, and more intrusive government, to keep us safe from the rioters.

Which, as is usual when it comes to questions of governance, is exactly backward.

Government isn't protecting the public from the rioters. Quite the reverse, in fact.

In the absence of government, which is to say, an actual state of anarchy, society reverts to natural law.

And natural law says: shoot the rioters. They're a threat. They're breaking and burning our stuff, and threatening us and our families. And most of them aren't even from around here. Shoot 'em all, and hang the survivors.

Rioting only happens (more than once, anyway) when the rioters are being protected.

So, no. Anarchy is very much what they don't want. But I suspect most of them have negative understanding of what it means anyway.